So who do the British Mau Mau victims claim from then?

[Thatcherite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19843719
Just another compo feast for the lawyers, you couldn't make it up!

[emmie]

The government.

[2sp_]

Hardly in the same league as falling off a step ladder at work, is it?

[Thatcherite]

what the Kenyan Government?

[Old_Geezer]

Presumably they try to claim from the Kenyan government.

[emmie]

no obviously the British Government, who else..

[buildersmate]

Who will then extract the necessary money from the taxpayer (one way or another).
So that basically means you and me footing the bill, as per usual.

[emmie]

Three Kenyans who were tortured by British colonial authorities can proceed with their legal claims against the UK government, a court has ruled.

[Thatcherite]

It's just years of wrangling at £3k an hour funded by legal aid no doubt over something that happenned in a foriegn county half a century ago where the protagonists are probably dead or incapable. How can it be anyone living's fault?

[Thatcherite]

Sorry the mau mau attrocities against the British can also be blamed on the British. You need to expand on that one em10!

[sp1814]

As the torturers were British colonists, it seems fair for those tortured to seek compensation.

Thinking of this - would you deny Jewish victims of the Holocaust retribution against the Germans? didn't Germany have to fork out substantial amounts in reparations?

Should their be a time limit on justice?

[emmie]

Don't blame me i posted from your link, the BBC.

[EDDIE51]

The UK taxpayer Who else ?

[emmie]

indeed ^^

[Zeuhl]

Mau Mau attrocities against white settlers were much fewer in number than the Administration's attrocities against locals.

I seem to recall it was a few dozen deaths on one side and a couple of thousand on the other.

But that is hardly the point.

The people in this case were never convicted of any wrong doing - the man who was castrated by the British internment camp official with a reputation for sadism was just picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Arbitrarily cutting off people's balls or sticking boiling hot dildos up women was carried out under our country's authority.

The fact that it has taken 50 years for these chickens to come home to roost is hardly the fault of these now elderly people.

We can hardly dismiss those crimes as inconsequential and still consider ourselves civilised regardless of what anyone else does.

[Mosaic]

I think there is an interesting issue here and in reagrd to some earlier and controversial posts.
If a person has been harmed, why is it not acceptable for them to seek compensatipn for the harm?
This was a cornerstone of viking and saxon law - a person had their worth (wergild) and being deprived of that worth, through loss of a husband, child, slave, living etc had a financial consequence that was recognised equally for all members of society.
I suppose being civilised and not a viking means you have to accept redress is only accessible to the toffs.

[emmie]

you may be right, but in truth how far back do you go. And the majority of people in Britain didn't know anything about this back then, and the current government weren't even born then, or most. So we will pay for the sins of the fathers.

[pdq1]

If this is allowed it would be a thin wedge for every enemy combatant to sue us. We would never know if they were innocent or not and whether they associated themselves with the enemy. Just say sorry for past misdeeds and leave it there.

[Mosaic]

But...why? If you have no redress militarily, why is it not acceptable to have redress through compensation?

[jackthehat]

The horrible things carried out on these people, 'innocent' or not go well beyond acceptable limits when 'engaging the enemy'.

The failure of *any* government to address the issue since that time, means that reparations have to be made now...

[emmie]

fine make them, then what?